How true is this image?

>>2395701
>mozart
no

troll imagine because of mozart, Wittgenstein and especially Schwarzenegger since he wasn't going for fit but rather aesthetics

>>2395701
Sorry, I'm an illiterate nobody.

Somebody please provide labels for who these guys are. Is that Stanley Kubrick for the Film category?

Mozart is not a meme, however Bach is probably more appropriate.

>>2395701
>Joyce
"no"
>Wittgenstein
"no"
>Mozart
"no"
>Kubrick
kill yourself
>Warhol
kill yourself
>Schwarzenegger
who cares. I'd put Charles Atlas or Johnny Weismuller before Arnold.
>Tolstoy
"no"
>Bresson
Literally the only decent one in that pic.

>Warhol
Considering art has gone to shit since he came about I'd say your assessment of his "ending the game" is quite apt.

>>2397552
>since he came about
Pollock and Mondrian both happened before Warhol. Both shit as well.

>>2395701
Miles Davis would be better for music, his quintets were arguably the pinnacle of acoustic music, and he covered electronic music later in his career as well. The classical style of music couldn't have ended music because many more concepts were introduced in later years. I think Miles covered all the bases left from the geniuses behind him.

>>2395701
Selecting anybody who is pre-"noise" music (not the genre) is objectively wrong.

>>2397549
>no for wittgenstein
cmon man

>>2397549
>kubrick
thats malick you dumbass

Looks like videos on xnxx with the blue background.

File: Untitled.png (1MB, 760x1950px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 760x1950px

>>2395701
fixed

>>2395701
By "ended" you mean made it complete shit and delegitimized it forever? Then I wholeheartedly agree especially when it comes to Warhol.

>>2395701
>art
>literature isn't art
>music isn't art
>film isn't art

And no, i'm not talk about pop music, YA and blockbusters

File: artists_shit.jpg (39KB, 340x358px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 340x358px

>>2397552
Half of Warhol's stuns were satire designed to point out the fact that art had become shit.

...In pic related's case, literally so.

Granted, 9/10 whenever someone links a picture criticizing modern art, they are also linking a satire piece, such as that famous toilet.

>>2397552
>>2397557
>>2398391
Conceptual art is boring.
All there is to it is trying to do something no one ever did before, and being recognized by people as "treading new ground".
It has no message, it's not pleasing to the eye, not interesting in any way. Pretending to be ironic doesn't help either.

>>2397557
at least Mondrian can be considered pleasing to the eye.

Picasso was the true cancer

File: 1280px-Van_Gogh_-_Starry_Night_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (599KB, 1280x1014px) Image search: [Google]

599KB, 1280x1014px

>>2398391
>>2397552
Aye, it'd probably be more accurate to blame Van Gogh and Picasso.

I mean, some of their shit was good, but they started a trend towards abandoning all connections to realism.

Granted, that's even less their fault, and more the fault of the fact that we developed color photography. It makes realism even as distant as impressionism all but pointless.

...and art has always been about "muh feels".

File: Thomas_Cole_-_The_Ages_of_Life_-_Youth_-_WGA05140.jpg (3MB, 4000x2737px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4000x2737px

>>2398426
> colour photography destroyed realism.

But artists like this guy painted stuff that was both realist in form while at the same time fantastical in content. It's perfectly doable, so why did people stop doing it?

Sometime I honestly suspect that talentless modernist hacks like Van Gogh and Picasso joined up with art critics of their time to create a modernist conspiracy, allowing all parties involved to massively prosper despite no discernible talent.

>>2398436
bretty gud

>>2398436
That place looks like Arizona

>>2398436
Well some people still do it - it's just not particularly popular among art circles, and yes, the skill is certainly becoming increasingly rare. ...and then you add shit like CG "art". Stuff just becomes increasingly fanciful and abstract.

Even the kids still do it:
http://realism-art.deviantart.com/gallery/24528116/Featured

Granted, I misspoke when I said "art has always been about 'muh feels'". It's also, among other things, serves as a status symbol. Being able to put a million dollar price tag on a piece of work that is objectively shit, and simply stating that anyone who can't perceive its true beauty is a pleb, does rather make for the perfect emperor's new clothing.

It's also not as if minimalist art is widely popular. It's kind of a niche scene, populated largely by the rich and the socially rebellious.

>>2398450
Like Arizona would let you put up a temple with a dome on top.

File: arizawna.jpg (556KB, 1225x1225px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 1225x1225px

>>2398471
Maybe the Mormons could be convinced.

>>2398513
>how would you like your saturation senpai
>just slide my shit up

>>2398518
Actually outside of that one cactus sky picture they're almost all genuine.

>>2397694
Why not Heidegger?

>>2398070
Now taine I can get into

>>2398436
Hey, I mean, I like Van Gogh's stuff, but it definitely shouldn't have become the big thing that it is, now. Don't like Picasso, though.

>>2398518
>>2398520
I question a bit too, but I've spent enough time in Arizona to know that Arizona sunsets are like freaking LSD.